Jump to content


wotbstars first rating system attempt plans


  • Please log in to reply
392 replies to this topic

DisordeR_ #41 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:12 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 30953 battles
  • 624
  • [-BA-]
  • Member since:
    06-27-2014

View Postface4stas, on 05 February 2015 - 01:07 AM, said:

 

Guys, only what we have to focus is making system fair. System that is twisted one way or another will gain no respect from players. It now seems to me that 0.3 penalty is too stiff. What about 0.15

 

  battles wins platoon wins Platon wins adjustment Platoon wins penalty Adjusted wins Win Rate Adjusted win rate Diff
jmstichler 13560 8502 2889 0.15 433 8069 62.7 59.51 3.19
Serapth 3384 1848 23 0.15 3 1845 54.61 54.52 0.09
fullestnuke 9402 7659 7362 0.15 1104 6555 81.46 69.72 11.74

 

I can only say that it looks better to me. Fullest is definitely at least 10% better than me. 

thunderthies #42 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:13 AM

    Not a Hoax

  • Club Wargaming
  • 14051 battles
  • 3,865
  • Member since:
    07-02-2014
Another, simpler solution, could be to include raw WR and adjusted WR. 

Check out:   WoTB terms, phrases defined v. 2.0

Check out:    iMovie iOS video production tutorial

Check out:           WoTB beginner's guide, tactics

Check out:                   WoTB YouTube channels


B0JIK #43 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:14 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 34833 battles
  • 2,383
  • [-XPD-]
  • Member since:
    04-29-2012

View Postdddqqq, on 05 February 2015 - 01:12 AM, said:

 

Instead of focusing on winrate you could make a system based off of contribution instead. Average damage, spots, k.d, damage ratio, etc. 

 

 

As I mentioned in OP the baseline would be determined for

a) Win Rate

b) Damage

c) Kills

d) Spots (that should be a reflection of the unreported by API spoting damage)

 

Each of these factors would have a weight that would depend on the tank type. It is expected that TDs would make more damage but less spotting when mediums would score exactly opposite.



originalmadkilla #44 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:16 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15915 battles
  • 3,698
  • [OMK]
  • Member since:
    04-02-2014

View Postjmstichler, on 05 February 2015 - 01:12 AM, said:

 

I can only say that it looks better to me. Fullest is definitely at least 10% better than me. 

 

I just want what's fair also, but do you believe that platooning has only added 3.19% to your normal win rate? Doesn't that seem a bit low?

dddqqq #45 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:16 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10289 battles
  • 896
  • Member since:
    06-27-2014
Ah ok. I didn't even look at the OP


acrisis #46 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:16 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 20339 battles
  • 11,037
  • [III-X]
  • Member since:
    12-27-2014

The thing everybody needs to keep in mind, is that the formula is not set in stone. It hasn't even really been used yet, and can be tweaked further down the road.

 

I agree that some adjustment for platooning probably should be made. At the same time, individual experienced players may make a great platoon, inexperienced players that just platoon will probably have no benefit ... and guys with a high win rate to begin with who now constantly play together, potentially live audio chat .. could rule any give game with two sets of eyes and ears.  And what I'm trying to say is if two 40% xp platoon or a 40%& 50% platoon effect may be minimal. The better the combo of xp players in the platoon, the higher the net effect will be.

 

Great work face4stas. 


 

Forum essentials:  > Desktop mode 
Check recent threads. Check WG staff threads. Use search.
    > WG Bugs and current update     > Feedback     > Vehicle Bay     > Guides     > Videos 

 

     BE  (+)   

    Got lag issues ?  >> Pingplotter thread  << 
Blitz Community Coalition | Looney Tooners | Triarii | Blitz University | Basic Training  | Mentor
 


Nutellanism #47 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:16 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13695 battles
  • 661
  • [EUNJI]
  • Member since:
    07-05-2014
All I have to say is. Thank you face4stas for even giving up one minute of your time to help. Loving the generosity. Any system you come up with is appreciated man.

_Virtus #48 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:18 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 17747 battles
  • 2,069
  • [NEO]
  • Member since:
    01-08-2014

Looks great! The second calculated statistic is much better than the first in my opinion. Maybe you can offer 2 ratings, one that penalizes platooning and one that doesn't. When you are faced against another player, what if they already are in a platoon? If they are, I would like to be able to check WOTBstars and assume Fullestnuke(example) is a 82% player instead to a 69% player..

Both are still TERRIFYING though when he's on the red team...


My YouTube Channel! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq2o9Lr-9FLKyFLMmj9Y98g/videos

TWITCH STREAMwww.twitch.tv/virtuswotblitz

X: FV-4202 | T-62A | OBJ-140 | LEOPARD I | E-50M IS-7 | M48 PATTON | E-100 | T110-E4 | JAGERÜ | FV-215B

American Medium Specialist


gl123 #49 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:19 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 317
  • Member since:
    07-10-2013

View Postface4stas, on 05 February 2015 - 01:01 AM, said:

 

Fine. What would be the fair rate ? 0.1 0.2 0.3 ?

 

It is hard to rate platoon - why? Cause you can platoon with or w/o using  mumblespeak/teamkill. If there is a way to identify that mumble/teamspeak has been used during the game, then my personal opinion is that your 0.7 multiplier is OK. Platooning w/o mumble/teamspeak is almost as playing as individual ... therefore, penalty could be 0.1 e.g. 0.9. But is there a way to know who is playing with or w/o audio connections.

Bottom line is that mumble/teamspeak greatly enhance your chances of win ... however, we also have to notice that some guys (concep, fullestnuke, etc.) are class on its own regardless how they play.


Edited by gl123, 05 February 2015 - 01:21 AM.


concep #50 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:19 AM

    Stop Tunneling Me

  • Players
  • 34947 battles
  • 5,212
  • Member since:
    05-02-2011
Why even have an adjusted WR or ? I honestly don't care about WR as much as I care about damage caused to damage received. That is what matters. It means you contributed to your team more. Why penalize platooners in the first place? WN8 doesn't judge a person by platooning and is considered an excellent system.

Tier Xs (in order of unlocking): T110E5, M48 Patton, T-62A, IS-7, E50M, IS-4, FV4202, T110E3, FV215b, Obj. 268, T110E4, Leopard 1, Obj. 140, STB-1, Obj. 263, T57 Heavy, AMX 50B, Bat Chat 25t

                                                                                         Most played tank: T-62A (3,100 battles)

Favorite Quotes                       #BACKFROMTHEGRAVE                                   YouTube Channel!


thunderthies #51 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:19 AM

    Not a Hoax

  • Club Wargaming
  • 14051 battles
  • 3,865
  • Member since:
    07-02-2014

View Postoriginalmadkilla, on 05 February 2015 - 01:16 AM, said:

 

I just want what's fair also, but do you believe that platooning has only added 3.19% to your normal win rate? Doesn't that seem a bit low?

 

You're assuming he plays exclusively with players of equal or greater WR than his own. There has to be some leeway to account for players who platoon to help others. There's a handful who signed up for the Training Grounds thing. In those instances, it's ver plausible that platooning could actually hinder the chance to win.

Check out:   WoTB terms, phrases defined v. 2.0

Check out:    iMovie iOS video production tutorial

Check out:           WoTB beginner's guide, tactics

Check out:                   WoTB YouTube channels


Serapth #52 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:19 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8415 battles
  • 2,391
  • Member since:
    07-25-2014

Its hard to say,  I think my winrate platooned is about 75%-80%, but then I've had so few games to go from it could have been a run of good matchmaker luck.  Obviously that's not sustainable, since I don't think many players have winrates in that range and I'm not a rockstar by any means.

 

If you wanted, since I almost never platoon, if someone wanted to partner opposite, I could do a run of games and see what the effect on my winrrate would be.  



_law #53 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:21 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 23976 battles
  • 1,409
  • [GRIM]
  • Member since:
    06-27-2014

View Postgl123, on 04 February 2015 - 06:19 PM, said:

 

It is hard to rate platoon - why? Cause you can platoon with or w/o using  mumblespeak/teamkill. If there is a way to identify that mumble/teamspeak has been used during the game, then my personal opinion is that your 0.7 multiplier is OK. Platooning w/o mumble/teamspeak is almost as playing as individual ... therefore, penalty could be 0.1 e.g. 0.9. But is there a way to know who is playing with or w/o audio connections.

 

anyone who has ever played with grant will tell you that you don't need ts to win 99.99% of the time.

 

"Get two birds stoned at once."

Serapth #54 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:22 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8415 battles
  • 2,391
  • Member since:
    07-25-2014

View Postface4stas, on 05 February 2015 - 01:14 AM, said:

 

As I mentioned in OP the baseline would be determined for

a) Win Rate

b) Damage

c) Kills

d) Spots (that should be a reflection of the unreported by API spoting damage)

 

Each of these factors would have a weight that would depend on the tank type. It is expected that TDs would make more damage but less spotting when mediums would score exactly opposite.

 

Whats kinda funny is, all my scout awards... I think they were in either my B2, Matilda or At15 :)



Nutellanism #55 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:22 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13695 battles
  • 661
  • [EUNJI]
  • Member since:
    07-05-2014

View Postfullestnuke, on 04 February 2015 - 05:21 PM, said:

 

anyone who has ever played with grant will tell you that you don't need ts to win 99.99% of the time.

 

Whats teamspeak?

concep #56 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:23 AM

    Stop Tunneling Me

  • Players
  • 34947 battles
  • 5,212
  • Member since:
    05-02-2011

View Postface4stas, on 04 February 2015 - 08:14 PM, said:

 

As I mentioned in OP the baseline would be determined for

a) Win Rate

b) Damage

c) Kills

d) Spots (that should be a reflection of the unreported by API spoting damage)

 

Each of these factors would have a weight that would depend on the tank type. It is expected that TDs would make more damage but less spotting when mediums would score exactly opposite.

 

I guess I better start suicide scouting every game and kill stealing if I'm still alive.

Tier Xs (in order of unlocking): T110E5, M48 Patton, T-62A, IS-7, E50M, IS-4, FV4202, T110E3, FV215b, Obj. 268, T110E4, Leopard 1, Obj. 140, STB-1, Obj. 263, T57 Heavy, AMX 50B, Bat Chat 25t

                                                                                         Most played tank: T-62A (3,100 battles)

Favorite Quotes                       #BACKFROMTHEGRAVE                                   YouTube Channel!


thunderthies #57 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:23 AM

    Not a Hoax

  • Club Wargaming
  • 14051 battles
  • 3,865
  • Member since:
    07-02-2014

View Postconcep, on 05 February 2015 - 01:19 AM, said:

Why even have an adjusted WR or ? I honestly don't care about WR as much as I care about damage caused to damage received. That is what matters. It means you contributed to your team more. Why penalize platooners in the first place? WN8 doesn't judge a person by platooning and is considered an excellent system.

 

>>Why even have an adjusted WR?

 

Because platooning influences WR. 

 

>>I honestly don't care about WR as much as I care about damage caused to damage received. That is what matters.

 

Agreed.

 

>>WN8 doesn't judge a person by platooning and is considered an excellent system.

 

True. But this isn't WN8. It's also not WoT.

 

 


Check out:   WoTB terms, phrases defined v. 2.0

Check out:    iMovie iOS video production tutorial

Check out:           WoTB beginner's guide, tactics

Check out:                   WoTB YouTube channels


thunderthies #58 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:24 AM

    Not a Hoax

  • Club Wargaming
  • 14051 battles
  • 3,865
  • Member since:
    07-02-2014

View Postfullestnuke, on 05 February 2015 - 01:21 AM, said:

 

anyone who has ever played with grant will tell you that you don't need ts to win 99.99% of the time.

 

Yup.

Check out:   WoTB terms, phrases defined v. 2.0

Check out:    iMovie iOS video production tutorial

Check out:           WoTB beginner's guide, tactics

Check out:                   WoTB YouTube channels


gl123 #59 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:25 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 317
  • Member since:
    07-10-2013

View Postconcep, on 05 February 2015 - 01:19 AM, said:

Why even have an adjusted WR or ? I honestly don't care about WR as much as I care about damage caused to damage received. That is what matters. It means you contributed to your team more. Why penalize platooners in the first place? WN8 doesn't judge a person by platooning and is considered an excellent system.

 

agree 1000%

Serapth #60 Posted 05 February 2015 - 01:25 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8415 battles
  • 2,391
  • Member since:
    07-25-2014

View Postconcep, on 05 February 2015 - 01:19 AM, said:

Why even have an adjusted WR or ? I honestly don't care about WR as much as I care about damage caused to damage received. That is what matters. It means you contributed to your team more. Why penalize platooners in the first place? WN8 doesn't judge a person by platooning and is considered an excellent system.

Platooning is going to affect so many tangibles beyond winrrate.  People that platoon are generally going to also have higher survival rates and more consistent damage, although they won't have as many outlier games.

 

Ideal would be to just discard all the platooned games completely but it doesn't sound like a possibility.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users